ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the accused. He was prosecuted for the offence under Ss. 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") along with co-accused Smt. Sudesh Kumari, who expired during pendency of the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) Bharatpur (Raj.) (for short 'the trial Court') vide judgment dtd. 12/1/2018 convicted him for the offence under Ss. 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him as under:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the accused appellant submits that this case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence available on the record against the appellant to convict him for the aforesaid offences. Counsel submits that the dead body was not identified. The post-mortem of an unidentified dead body was conducted. He submits that as per Forensic Science Lab Report (for short 'FSL Report') (Ex.P54), no DNA profile was obtained from bone and teeth of the deceased, hence no conclusion was drawn regarding its matching with DNA profile/blood sample of father and brother of deceased Sapna. Counsel submits that there is no evidence available on the record that the deceased was residing with the appellant or she was last seen alive in his company. He submits that no motive was established by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime. Counsel submits that the recovered mobile did not belong to him and no certificate under Sec. 65-B of the Evidence Act was taken. Counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, hence the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.

(3.) In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the cases of Navaneethakrishnan v. The State By Inspector Of Police, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 161 and Parubai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 566.